Comments on: Obvious (yet again)

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 27 May 2005 03:41:00 +0000

In a memorably misjudged bit of phrasing, Roy Hattersley once said "When it comes to racism, I believe in calling a spade a spade" – though I imagine he was mortified when someone pointed it out.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Thu, 26 May 2005 20:06:00 +0000

"Here's a spade, keep digging."

My God. I thought you wrote, 'He's a spade. Keep digging.'

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 26 May 2005 12:00:00 +0000

Oh Christ, just look at my blog. I flip-flop like John Kerry. In the last 4 months alone, I’ve advocated voting Tory, Lib Dem, Labour and SNP.

By: Matt Daws

Matt Daws — Thu, 26 May 2005 06:19:00 +0000

Arse. I think I’ve clearly lost this argument. However, I shall be on the look out for when there’s the slightest wiff of double-standards coming from any of you…

By: john b

john b — Wed, 25 May 2005 19:46:00 +0000

No. OJ was probably guilty, the police clearly lied, the case was therefore thrown out, therefore justice was done.

By: Matt Daws

Matt Daws — Wed, 25 May 2005 14:40:00 +0000

You think the OJ trial wasn’t a travesty of justice then?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 25 May 2005 14:20:00 +0000

That would be 'found innocent in a court of law by a jury of his peers' OJ? Here's a spade, keep digging.

Blunkett pushed it through, and Caroline Flint denied in the Commons that it could be used for this exact purpose. Lucky she now works at Health, eh?

By: Matt Daws

Matt Daws — Wed, 25 May 2005 13:16:00 +0000

Andrew,

Okay, well, I guess I'm beginning to clutch at straws. My assumption was that these guys were as basically as guilty as O.J. That doesn't make what is happening to them right, but it does make a little bit of me glad that their getting what's coming to them. However, maybe it isn't as clear-cut as all that (though Richard would seem to come down on my side here).

Before anyone starts to believe I actually think they should be sent to the US, let me re-iterate: I fully agree with Jamie and John etc. and think that people should only be extradited once a UK court has seen evidence and agreed that they have a case to answer, and that they should best be tried abroad and not here.

Was it Blunkett who first pushed this law through? Blind tosser...

--Matt

By: jamie

jamie — Wed, 25 May 2005 12:36:00 +0000

Can we all agree that no-one should be sent for trial aborad simply on the basis that the people who wanted him or her have got the name right?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 25 May 2005 10:55:00 +0000

Matt,

The bankers in question have proclaimed their innocence several times, and even asked the SFO and other UK authorities to bring a case against them here if they believe there is a case to answer. Just because a man is a millionaire, it doesn't make him a crook, in the same way that a man wearing a turban, sporting a healthy tan and a scraggly beard isn't a suicide bomber.

Now, you can believe them or not, but that's for a court to decide based on the evidence, not for you based on the colour of their skin, their social class and relative wealth.